- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:54:15 +0200
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Le 10/10/2012 16:02, Sandro Hawke a écrit : > On 10/10/2012 09:48 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > [skip] >> >> >>> I can't quite decide if, engineering-wise, that's brilliant or >>> ridiculous. As an software developer, I'd probably like some stronger >>> guarantees, such as a hash, or the contents of the bundles being >>> transmitted in the same document as the assertions about them. The easy >>> solution would be a convention for including the hash of the contents in >>> the URL. Standards-wise, I guess that looks something like >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 (although I'd >>> approach it rather differently, myself). >> >> But I think TriG does work here, as a syntax, so there may not be any >> need for such a thing. >> > > So, they're okay with never using RDF/XML or Turtle or RDFa and always > using TriG or JSON-LD if there are any bundles involved in the > provenance data? If so, yes, that would simplify things. Then they just > need to say a few words about <n,g> pairs, and they're all set. I cannot say if they are Ok or even if they are considering it seriously, since I'm not involved in the PROV WG, but from what I read in their documents (PROV-DM and PROV-CONSTRAINT, the only ones I've read), it looks like they could simply rely on TriG to serialise PROV documents. They could still use Turtle or RDF/XML for the special---yet common---case of simple provenance instances without bundles. AZ. > > -- Sandro > >> >> AZ. >> >> >>> >>> -- Sandro >>> >>> >>>> -AZ >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> from using named graphs and RDF datasets for their bundle. But it's >>>>>> quite the opposite: we have voted for the absence of constraints! >>>>>> >>>>>> So they can use the RDF dataset data structure the way they want. >>>>>> They simply have to be warned that they should not assume any >>>>>> particular meaning for a dataset. Therefore, if they want to use >>>>>> this for bundles, they'll have to completely describe all the >>>>>> constraints they require when defining a provenance dataset. >>>>>> Whatever constraints they define will be consistent with the RDF >>>>>> specs, since our set of constraints regarding datasets is empty. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I'd have no problem telling them to go ahead and use datasets, >>>>>> and be specific in what it means in the context of provenance >>>>>> data. >>>>>> >>>>>> --AZ >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 05/10/2012 05:40, Pat Hayes a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 3:24 PM, David Wood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Pat, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 15:55, Pat Hayes<phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> David, greetings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have been waiting for the WG to make a decision about >>>>>>>>> datasets and named graphs before getting back to the PROV >>>>>>>>> group, as this is the most relevant to their 'bundle' >>>>>>>>> feature. As far as I can see, our recent decision to gove no >>>>>>>>> semantics to datasets means that we contribute nothing to >>>>>>>>> this, and the PROV group are on their own to invent their own >>>>>>>>> graph naming construct and give it the semantics they want, >>>>>>>>> independently from the output of this WG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you concur? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm. A bundle is "a named set of descriptions, but it is also >>>>>>>> an entity so that its provenance can be described." [1] A >>>>>>>> SPARQL dataset "represents a collection of graphs" and >>>>>>>> "comprises one graph, the default graph, which does not have a >>>>>>>> name, and zero or more named graphs, where each named graph is >>>>>>>> identified by an IRI." [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is clearly overlap there, but I don't think the overlap >>>>>>>> is anywhere near complete. It doesn't appear that the WG is >>>>>>>> willing to equate a "named set of descriptions" with a >>>>>>>> "collection of graphs" nor to presuppose some way to then give >>>>>>>> the dataset a name via an IRI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right. And it seems to me that it is the second part that really >>>>>>> matters. In their original request for comment they particularly >>>>>>> mentioned named graphs as a topic of interest in connection with >>>>>>> bundles, and I took them to be interested in the possibility >>>>>>> that named graphs could be used to construct bundles or implement >>>>>>> them in RDF in a natural way. I think, now, the only possible >>>>>>> answer is, no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, it appears to me that we have problems with the PROV-DM >>>>>>>> document's definition of a Bundle from at least two >>>>>>>> perspectives: We don't have semantics for datasets, nor do we >>>>>>>> have a syntax that we could equate to a bundle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think they were expecting to find a ready-made bundle in >>>>>>> RDF, but there is now nothing in RDF which would even be of >>>>>>> utility or help in creating bundles, AFAIKS. They will have to >>>>>>> define their own extension to RDF and give it a purpose-built >>>>>>> semantics of their own. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TriG (as currently conceptualized) could provide a syntax for >>>>>>>> a bundle iff we decide to adopt some way to name the package >>>>>>>> itself (as some extant systems do, by assigning an IRI upon >>>>>>>> ingest). I think both of those rather unlikely at this time, >>>>>>>> although I don't think implementors will cease doing so >>>>>>>> (because it is useful). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, I could be wrong since my reading is still >>>>>>>> incomplete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, Dave >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/#term-bundle-entity [2] >>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rdfDataset >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 2:33 PM, David Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Paul. We'll get back to you shortly, hopefully >>>>>>>>>> prior to your 10 Oct deadline. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2012, at 14:52, Paul Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We had specific questions about PROV-DM and PROV-O that >>>>>>>>>>> we are keen on getting answered. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From the email to the RDF WG chains on July 24, 2012: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "We particularly wanted to call your attention to the >>>>>>>>>>> Bundle feature [5]. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Questions we have are: - We are hopeful that the notion >>>>>>>>>>> of Bundle should map to the notion of graph you are >>>>>>>>>>> defining. Can you look into this? - In particular, with >>>>>>>>>>> respect to Bundle do you see the construct Mention[6] as >>>>>>>>>>> compatible with RDF now and going forward - PROV-DM is >>>>>>>>>>> dependent on rdf types[7]. Do you envisage any further >>>>>>>>>>> changes in the rdf data types? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In addition, any feedback on the PROV-Ontology document >>>>>>>>>>> is greatly appreciated." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, in prov-constraints we wondered about Bundle >>>>>>>>>>> and specifically terminology of Document and Bundle work >>>>>>>>>>> with terms you will use in RDF. For example, I have heard >>>>>>>>>>> that the term dataset will be used. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We are keen on getting feedback as soon as possible so >>>>>>>>>>> that are CR document is in-line with what is forthcoming >>>>>>>>>>> in RDF. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Paul >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM, David >>>>>>>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The RDF WG has discussed your questions below and we >>>>>>>>>>>> have decided that it is rather difficult for us to be >>>>>>>>>>>> sure that we are responding in the way you wish. As >>>>>>>>>>>> you undoubtedly know, the provenance docs are getting >>>>>>>>>>>> rather large and the constraints doc does not stand >>>>>>>>>>>> alone for review. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you able to formulate more targeted questions for >>>>>>>>>>>> us to consider? For example, are you concerned that a >>>>>>>>>>>> particular feature of PROV Constraints relies upon RDF >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics, or a particular interpretation? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any more detailed guidance would help our reviewers >>>>>>>>>>>> greatly. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave -- David Wood, Ph.D. 3 Round Stones >>>>>>>>>>>> http://3roundstones.com Cell: +1 540 538 9137 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:29, David >>>>>>>>>>>> Wood<david@3roundstones.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you. We acknowledge your request and have it >>>>>>>>>>>>> on our agenda [1] for Wednesday. We will advise our >>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewers to send comments to your comments list >>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Dave >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.09.19#Provenance_Constraints_Review >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> [2] mailto:public-prov-comments@w3.org >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 07:07, Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>> Groth<p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Guus, David, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you've seen, we just published last call of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constraints of the PROV Data Model [1]. We are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interested in the RDF WG feedback on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> document. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions we have are: - Does the terminology, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bundle and Document work with the terminology in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the RDF WG? - With respect to Bundle and Document >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the defined constraints work with what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially being specified in RDF? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are looking forward to your feedback on this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> document and also the other last call documents. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time, Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group | >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Artificial Intelligence Section | Department of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computer Science - The Network Institute VU >>>>>>>>>>>>>> University Amsterdam >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- -- Dr. Paul Groth (p.t.groth@vu.nl) >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.few.vu.nl/~pgroth/ Assistant Professor - >>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge Representation& Reasoning Group | Artificial >>>>>>>>>>> Intelligence Section | Department of Computer Science - >>>>>>>>>>> The Network Institute VU University Amsterdam >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. >>>>>>>>> (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL >>>>>>>>> 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us >>>>>>>>> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 >>>>>>> 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 >>>>>>> fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>>>>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École >>>>>> Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel >>>>>> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 >>>>>> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC >>>>> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. >>>>> (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 >>>>> 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 >>>>> mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 14:54:45 UTC